2008 Woodie Awards
Ending Roe v. Wade
Patrick Boyle
Issue date: 11/17/05 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
There's nothing like a Supreme Court nomination to bring the complicated issue of abortion to the forefront of political debate. Since President George W. Bush tapped Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Samuel Alito for the nation's highest court on Oct. 31, there has been a great deal of discussion about how the latest high court candidate views Roe v. Wade and abortion.
Make no mistake, there is no longer any intelligent debate about the Roe v. Wade decision.
There is only political lobbying inspired by the intensely emotional arguments from advocates and politicians regarding abortion-not the legal basis for the court decision.
Millions are poured into campaigns and ads on both sides to support or oppose nominees on the basis of their feelings on abortion and nothing else.
What is worse, however, is that ever since one of President Ronald Reagan's nominees, Robert Bork, was voted down- because he did the unthinkable and let senators know exactly what he thought about Roe v. Wade and other settled cases- Supreme Court nominees have been increasingly reluctant to comment on hot button judicial issues such as abortion.
Therefore, pro-life and pro-choice advocacy groups end up going to great lengths to support or oppose nominees based on the way they think they might vote. That is an absurd system.
Candidates are always sure to say that there would be no litmus test if they had a chance to nominate someone for the bench. Anyone can plainly see this isn't true, and the litmus test they use before all others is based on Roe v. Wade.
This makes a joke out of the serious process of determining whether someone is fit to serve on the powerful Supreme Court.
I believe the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade. Many people will read that and label me a fanatic pro-lifer, but I am pro-choice and, in fact, feel there are too many restrictions on abortion.
Which is precisely my point-the issue of the court's justification for the decision and the debate over abortion should be entirely separate. When taking a step back from one's personal feelings on this emotional issue, it becomes clear that with Roe, the court found a very questionable constitutional right, linking the medical procedure of abortion with a right to privacy contained, to some extent, in several amendments.
Make no mistake, there is no longer any intelligent debate about the Roe v. Wade decision.
There is only political lobbying inspired by the intensely emotional arguments from advocates and politicians regarding abortion-not the legal basis for the court decision.
Millions are poured into campaigns and ads on both sides to support or oppose nominees on the basis of their feelings on abortion and nothing else.
What is worse, however, is that ever since one of President Ronald Reagan's nominees, Robert Bork, was voted down- because he did the unthinkable and let senators know exactly what he thought about Roe v. Wade and other settled cases- Supreme Court nominees have been increasingly reluctant to comment on hot button judicial issues such as abortion.
Therefore, pro-life and pro-choice advocacy groups end up going to great lengths to support or oppose nominees based on the way they think they might vote. That is an absurd system.
Candidates are always sure to say that there would be no litmus test if they had a chance to nominate someone for the bench. Anyone can plainly see this isn't true, and the litmus test they use before all others is based on Roe v. Wade.
This makes a joke out of the serious process of determining whether someone is fit to serve on the powerful Supreme Court.
I believe the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade. Many people will read that and label me a fanatic pro-lifer, but I am pro-choice and, in fact, feel there are too many restrictions on abortion.
Which is precisely my point-the issue of the court's justification for the decision and the debate over abortion should be entirely separate. When taking a step back from one's personal feelings on this emotional issue, it becomes clear that with Roe, the court found a very questionable constitutional right, linking the medical procedure of abortion with a right to privacy contained, to some extent, in several amendments.
Be the first to comment on this story